Agree to disagree, but my thanks are sincere regardless.
-
-
for completeness here's a response to the main concern of that vox article (AI risk) http://effective-altruism.com/ea/m4/a_response_to_matthews_on_ai_risk/ …
-
I can’t tell if that author does/doesn’t believe AI risk more important than poverty.
-
The naive/simplistic thing is to say, "You're crazy that AI could rival poverty in importance." That's naive.
-
this was, I think,
@tqbf's point. Sometimes we think we're thinking big thoughts but have gone off the fallacy rails. -
Perfect! If you’d written my original message, I think we’d all be in a happier place.
-
it took a while to get to it, so I don't think I would have arrived at it originally. Glad it ended well :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"save the world, simplistically" is a very uncharitable interpretation of what effective altruism aims to do
-
There’s a distinction to be made between intentional and unintentional oversimplification.
-
Agree. But are technologists worse than non-technologists on this issue, _on the whole_? I say no way.
-
I have no trouble believing that every profession has its foibles, biases, and idiosyncrasies. This is ours.
-
I'd say the exact opposite. That, on average, technologists are LESS simplistic in their thinking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Many of the folks in the EA movement are exactly the kind of thoughtful NON-simplistic people I'm thinking of.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The core ideas behind EA are spot on though. We need to be smarter about doing good, less driven by emotion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.